Thursday 30th October 2025
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeTobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 89-II(b) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (30 Oct 2025)
Baroness Northover
“Transparency of tobacco sales data(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring every manufacturer and importer of tobacco products to publish, on a quarterly basis, data relating to the sale of tobacco products in England and Wales.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must in particular include provision requiring publication of—(a) the volume of sales of tobacco products, broken down by product type, brand and geographical region, and(b) such other information as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purposes of assessing tobacco consumption and its effects on public health.(3) Data published under regulations under this section must be made publicly available in a format accessible to public health authorities, local authorities, and other relevant bodies.(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations obliging tobacco companies to publish sales data, to improve transparency and support public health policy.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 12, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, and Amendment 148, in my name, would require the Secretary of State to make regulations obliging tobacco manufacturers and importers to provide sales data by geographical area. Before the Minister says that there is already such a power, let me refer to Amendment 148, which seeks to change “may” to “must” for the requirement to make regulations and to publish data.
Tobacco companies collect rich data tracking the sales of their products which currently exist only to serve commercial purposes. Modelling from Cancer Research UK shows that those living in the most affluent areas of the UK should be smoke free this year, whereas those in the least affluent will not achieve that until after 2050—25 years later. That inequality has devastating consequences. Hence, there are nearly twice as many cancer cases caused by smoking in the poorest areas in England compared to the wealthiest.
Data collected by companies on sales and distributions could be used to inform public health. They could also give insights into different pricing strategies that companies use and would therefore complement a “polluter pays” levy, which I know many people rightly support. The data would also have value in setting up a new licensing system, helping local government understand the pattern of sales in its communities and make judgments about whether availability was appropriate. Trading standards would also benefit, using insights to support enforcement activity and improve the intelligence that local authorities have to assess local problems with any illicit sales and to identify upticks in illicit tobacco use.
Action on Smoking and Health, in its written evidence on the Bill, also flagged the issue of cigarillos, saying that surveys have
“recently identified that cigarillos are increasing in use among young people. With timely access to industry sales data public health agencies and researchers could have identified this trend far more quickly. These products have fewer restrictions on them than other tobacco products, something that will be addressed via the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, but lack of knowledge has inhibited swift public health response”.
Industry data have been shrouded in secrecy—what a surprise. Thank goodness that Professor Sir Richard Doll had the cancer registries to demonstrate the causal link between smoking and cancer. Since public health academics started analysing industry profits, they publish only very limited data. Mandated publication of sales data would ensure that this industry, which sells a product that kills two-thirds of long-term users, is appropriately regulated and monitored given the harms it causes. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I agree with Amendment 12 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, but I want to speak to Amendment 192, which proposes the introduction of a levy on tobacco manufacturers.
When products cause harm, the polluter should pay. That principle was introduced by previous Conservative Governments; the landfill levy was introduced in 1996 and the soft drinks levy in 2018. After the Grenfell tragedy, we introduced the Building Safety Act to make the construction industry pay for the remediation of high-rise blocks. We should apply the same principle to tobacco.
In a report commissioned by the last Government, Javed Khan looked at three options to raise funds to implement his conclusions. He wrote:
“Introduce a ‘polluter pays’ industry levy on profits from cigarette sales, which can directly fund the full range of comprehensive measures to help us reach smokefree 2030 and make smoking obsolete. This is my preferred option … A tobacco ‘polluter pays’ levy could be introduced in the form of a charge applied as a percentage of these profits”.
It would not impact on the CPI or the cost to the consumer, and it would raise hundreds of millions of pounds.
We debated exactly that proposition on 16 March 2022, Amendment 158 to the Health and Care Bill, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, whom I am delighted to see in his place. He said about that amendment:
“This new Clause … would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to carry out a consultation about a statutory scheme for the regulation of prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers. Funds raised by the scheme would be used to pay for the cost of tobacco control measures”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; cols. 287-88.]
That is precisely what Amendment 192 proposes.
Responding to the amendment, the Minister, speaking then from the Opposition Front Bench on behalf of her party, said:
“This strikes me as wholly pragmatic; a wide-ranging consultation would undoubtedly help to strike the right balance between all the parties involved … The scheme proposed in this group of amendments would provide a well-funded and much-needed boost, and a consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped. I hope that the Minister will accept the opportunity of a consultation but if the will of the House is tested, these Benches will support the amendments”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; col. 297.]
She was as good as her word: she supported the amendment, along with the Leader of her party and the Chief Whip, and the amendment was carried, later to be overturned in another place. I was therefore surprised that the noble Baroness did not add her name to this amendment when I tabled it, and I look forward to her compelling speech in its favour.
Amendment 192 would require the Government to consult on the introduction of a “polluter pays” levy. Tobacco is a uniquely addictive and lethal consumer product, and this creates a perfect storm for consumers. The tobacco industry in this country continues to be in good health, unlike its customers, and companies continue to make significant profits: an estimated £900 million per year in the UK alone, with average profit margins of around 50% compared to 10% for manufacturing margins.
There are various estimated costs to society of smoking. That from ASH is £43.7 billion a year—perhaps the Government could share their own estimate—and it is the taxpayer who picks up the tab: costs to the NHS, costs to social care, lost productivity to our economy, and higher welfare bills. A “polluter pays” levy ensures that those who can and should pay, do, and implementing it would raise up to £700 million a year.
So how would it work? The Treasury consulted on a levy in 2014 and did not proceed, but what is proposed now is quite different and, crucially, it would not allow the industry to pass costs on to the consumer and would have no impact on the RPI.
The levy model proposed by the APPG on Smoking and Health would introduce a price cap on tobacco similar to what we do with utilities. That would limit the prices to manufacturing costs plus, say, a 10% profit margin. This would be in line with other consumer products and more than generous for an industry responsible for such high levels of harm. The Government would then introduce a new levy on the industry, to be paid for from its profits.
A consultation would allow this model to be “tested and shaped”, providing a much-needed boost to public finances. The public too share our support for this proposal, with 76% of adults in England in favour of a “polluter pays” levy.
I note that the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on this same subject proposes to put the proceeds into
“a dedicated fund held by the Department of Health and Social Care”.
I have not included such hypothecation in my own amendment, but I fully support what he seeks to do. Some £700 million a year could be used to support 2 million more smokers to quit just in this Parliament and accelerate progress towards a smoke-free future. It is likely that funds would be left over, which could be used for other public health activities, helping the Government achieve their mission of reducing the gap in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest.
This is a measured, fair and practical proposal. It would protect the consumer, prevent industry manipulation, provide much-needed funding for the Treasury, and ensure that those who profit from an addictive and lethal product made a proper contribution to repairing the damage it causes. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 194, on a tobacco industry levy and new industry obligations, offers a vital and practical mechanism to make the Bill stronger, fairer and more effective in public health and social justice terms. I am sure there is not a Member present whose family has not been impacted by nicotine addiction, and my family is no exception. The Bill presents an important opportunity to redress the balance between corporate profits gained from selling products that by their very nature kill two-thirds of their users and the burdens placed on wider society that are felt by our health and care systems. Other amendments in this group are based on similar ways of addressing these wider problems and I welcome them. These are problems that, if not addressed, will persist long after the Bill is passed.
My amendment would quite simply make those who profit from harm contribute directly towards repairing it. The tobacco industry continues to generate vast profits from the products it sells and it has huge economic and human suffering costs. I acknowledge that accurate statistical data in these areas is complex, but it has been estimated that the four largest tobacco manufacturers made approximately £900 million in profits annually in the UK, according to one 2023 estimate. I well recognise that tobacco duties are a significant source of government revenue, raising an estimated £8.1 billion in 2025-26, which represents 0.7% of all government receipts and is equivalent to 0.3% of national income. However, this revenue goes towards general taxation.
The health impacts of smoking and nicotine are estimated to cost the UK economy billions of pounds annually, with estimates for England alone reaching up to £43.7 billion if the total societal costs are included and some £2.5 billion in direct service costs for the NHS. These figures are significant and productivity loss and health impacts have big societal impacts. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce by regulation a levy on companies’ profits derived from income from the manufacture or sale of tobacco products in the United Kingdom. The levy would apply annually and would be based on profits attributable to tobacco sales here. The funds raised would be paid to a dedicated ring-fenced account held by the Department of Health and Social Care. As has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, every penny collected would be used solely for the purposes of either smoking cessation services, public health campaigns focused on reducing tobacco harm or healthcare services to treat people living with smoking-related diseases.
It is worth stressing what this amendment would not do. It would not set the rate or the structure of the levy. I have left these details entirely for the Government to determine. The measure is not prescriptive; it would simply establish the legislative framework and would allow Ministers to design and introduce a fair and proportionate levy. It would give the Government flexibility to decide, for example, whether the levy should be assessed by company profits, by market share or by a combination of the two approaches. It would equally be left to the Treasury to investigate and decide, with Ministers, the best way to implement it. The principle of the amendment is the important point, and it is clear. The principle is that the tobacco companies, and not the general taxpayer, should contribute directly the greatest proportion of the cost of the harm that their products cause. It would align, as has been said on other amendments today, with the “polluter pays” model, which is endorsed by health experts across the field. The estimate is that £700 million could be generated annually to help transform smoking cessation services and public awareness campaigns, services that have been hit by cuts.
Although the level of smoking is reducing, some 13% of the UK population still smokes. This has significant impacts. For example, Imperial tobacco holds 40% of the UK market; that market is worth £30 billion annually. Meanwhile, on the other side, the NHS and the Treasury have to deal with the societal consequences of what tobacco does.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in Committee on this Bill, I want to reflect for a moment on the extraordinary lengths to which tobacco companies will go to sell their products, including getting children addicted to nicotine. When I look at this Bill and the amendments to it, I see the extraordinary lengths to which government must then go in order to combat that.
Turning to the amendments in this group, we have heard three excellent speeches. I do not want to repeat any of the points made but wish to pick up one made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It concerns the importance of the government side of this combat, if you like, between the tobacco companies and government. Put simply, the Government should have the data that is available so that they can hone their arguments in the continuing wrestle that we are seeing around this set of topics.
I very much support that amendment. I also support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the “polluter pays” principle. Again, this seems practical to me; we heard the Minister refer to it as such at an earlier period, I believe. However, there are three terribly simple arguments, although I do not want to add to the detail. First, there is the principle that the polluter should pay for the damage. That is a very simple statement; it has, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, been used in other circumstances. There is very considerable damage, and it is very easily measured.
The second argument is to reduce the incentives for tobacco companies. As I have commented before, if only we could get the tobacco companies to use all their guile and manoeuvring to improve health rather than damage it. Perhaps there are things that government can learn from the way in which tobacco companies seek to influence the public.
The third argument is, of course, to support public health. Another good reason for this is to provide that money to support public health and at the same time the public purse. Finally, I note that tobacco companies probably come under the category of those with broad shoulders, so I ask the Minister whether we might expect to hear a line or two about this in the forthcoming Budget.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I stand with some trepidation on this one, but I will give it a go. I have some reservations about this series of amendments. On Amendment 12, I have a lot of sympathy with having more transparency as a general principle, but I ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, how we would deal with having a dangerous precedent on the commercial confidentiality and sensitivities, for any company, and what can and cannot be revealed. Asking for information is one thing; mandating it is a whole different ball game. Many companies hold data close to themselves, as they are allowed to, because they are private entities. It is a legal thing to do and there are reasons, beyond malevolent ones, why that might occur.
I am particularly concerned about Amendments 192 and 194. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, noted, tobacco companies already pay, or are responsible for, substantial duties that are collected. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the “polluter pays” principle—or, at least, it is quite complicated. It sounds virtuous, and in some instances I might well support it, but when I was reading these amendments I kept thinking, perhaps because of my left-wing, Marxist background, “Oh my God, this is a new form of legal wealth distribution by force”. It felt to me as though we were saying: “Forget economic growth. We’re just going take more from legal companies, but it’s all right because they are evil companies”.
In the words that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, used about his more specific amendments on what the money should be used for, if I may put it that way, I recognised an argument that I came across from Cancer Research. It has been very helpful in its briefings on the Bill and, in many instances, I agree with what it is putting forward. But in this instance, it said:
“At a time when funding for public health initiatives is limited, this proposal raises money without directly costing the taxpayer. Given the current economic challenges, this presents an opportunity for the Government to act decisively, should it choose to seize it”.
I kept thinking of this as a way of avoiding crises in public health, or in the NHS, by simply not resolving what should be an adequate health service for everyone while turning to private companies instead and trying to compensate for that. That is a dangerous precedent. Private companies should not let the state off the hook for what it should be doing, because those public health services should be provided by the state, regardless.
The fact that there is an economic crisis at the moment cannot just be meted out to companies that we do not like. I realise that tobacco companies have for some time been treated as especially evil, malevolent and harmful, but if you enter other debates and read the briefings of lobbying groups on other issues, you will hear similar moralistic arguments used about sugary foods, junk food, alcohol, gambling and even fossil fuels. I read a fascinating paper the other day which basically said that fossil fuels were killing us all and should be closed down, and so on. That is the kind of language being used.
I therefore worry about setting a precedent for a moralised hierarchy of legislators deciding which are the evil companies, and who gets to decide that, with a punishment then meted out. I say this because, briefly, I was a bit disturbed the other day at some mention of a report by KPMG. The data in it was dismissed as being from a report produced for Philip Morris, the tobacco company, as if that somehow closed down any possibility of a discussion—that having said that, the report could be laughed off. The idea that all you have to do is say the name of a tobacco company, and then close down valuable information, is quite dangerous.
It thought that was particularly unfair on KPMG. I am not necessarily a great fan of the big four accountancy firms, but they certainly have reputations. To write them off as being in bed with the evil Philip Morris, so that we take no notice of what they do, seemed a little unfair. If that were the case, have the Government let KPMG know that this is their view of it—especially since KPMG is a supplier to the Government, as I understand it, focusing on Civil Service training and economic matters? KPMG might have a case to answer on those things, but it should not be written off as a company because it has done some work for Philip Morris.
Neither is it appropriate for our discussions to always assume that everything a tobacco company says or does is evil because of the nature of the product. The product is harmful and contributes to cancer in many people—I know that—but if this Government believe that the tobacco companies are so uniquely evil that they are killing the population, they should have the courage of their conviction, make them illegal and ban them, not take their taxes and have it all ways.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Normal service is probably about to be resumed. I am on a different page from her on this issue.
These amendments give me the opportunity to clarify my position on the Bill. I fear that my previous opposition to the age-escalator provision in the Bill, meaning that some adults will never be able to purchase tobacco legally, has been misrepresented by some as a general objection to any form of regulation or restriction on tobacco. I state clearly that that is not the case. That is why I support all amendments in this group—Amendments 12 and 148, tabled by my noble friend Lady Northover, Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and Amendment 194 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell.
I come back to something the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said regarding the point made by my noble friend Lady Northover about data. If this was unique, some of those issues would need to be explored further, but this is not a first. For example, the water and energy companies have to give to the regulator investment details, asset details, investment plans and details of their costs and profits. This happens without commercial sensitivities going by the way. The amendments, particularly Amendments 192 and 194, generally represent a necessary and proportionate intervention to correct a profound fiscal and health imbalance, which is weighted too heavily in favour of the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry in the UK operates with a near monopoly, as many noble Lords have said, on selling an addictive product. The market structure allows them to generate excessive profits. They extract nearly £900 million per year in profit, while contributing little in terms of corporate tax to the Exchequer.
Simultaneously, the societal costs of smoking are vast, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, and my noble friend Lord Russell identified, with the NHS bearing the immediate cost of approximately £1.8 billion per year. The current system places the entire tax burden on the consumer and the taxpayer, while the manufacturer enjoys excessive returns. That is not only a moral wrong but an economic failure that government has a duty to correct.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, in support of the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, there is ample evidence of successful earlier levies, contrary to what the noble Baroness suggested. They include levies on landfill and soft drinks as well as provisions following Grenfell, as my noble friend said. In the gambling industry, there is also a very successful levy. Nor is it a unique matter to require companies to publish data, with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, correctly naming water and energy as two examples.
I can quite see why the Minister is attracted to the idea of the levy. In this hard-pressed time, we have hard-pressed taxpayers about to be even more hard pressed; they should not have to pay for the gap in public resources for public health. Nevertheless, there is a gap in the public health budget that needs to be filled—and this will fill it. I can therefore see why the Minister is attracted to it. There is also of course the incalculable harm that is caused by the industry—whether one calls it evil or not. As the noble Baroness mentioned, two-thirds of people who smoke will ultimately die from it—that to me can be characterised as evil. It certainly causes harm, and that harm needs to be dealt with.
So I strongly support this group of amendments. Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Northover, and Amendment 148 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, concern publishing data. They seem eminently sensible. However, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s amendment would provide a means of getting the polluter to pay. That is something we should seek to do because, as noble as the aims of this legislation are, there is a big gap in spending. I do not see why the taxpayer should have to pay for this, but I can quite see why the industry should; I hope, therefore, to hear from the Minister that that is going to happen.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of our Benches, I have added my name to my noble friend Lady Northover’s Amendment 12. I also support Amendment 148, of course, although my name is not on it yet; I have a bit of a track record on changing “may” to “must”, so I am very much in favour of that amendment.
As my noble friend said, the tobacco industry sits on a rich source of data that would help public health planners and practitioners to plan and deliver public health smoking cessation services in a granular way. That could help to reduce inequalities, so my noble friend’s Amendments 12 and 148 are no-brainers for the Government in the fight against health inequality, which I know they are in favour of winning. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, pointed out, if you have the data, you have a powerful weapon; the industry uses it and the Government should have it.
The data would also shine a light on the massive profits of the tobacco companies, which saw the writing on the wall about the decline of tobacco smoking and shifted part of their business model to hooking young people and existing smokers into being addicted to their nicotine vaping products instead. They then surrounded them with brightly coloured packaging, attractive-sounding flavours and masses of expensive advertising. One has to wonder why they spend so much money on advertising and the attractive displays in my local village shops. Ah, yes—it must be because that enables them to hook people to their profitable products for life.
These profits are addressed in Amendment 192 from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, which is supported by my noble friends Lord Rennard and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and in my noble friend Lord Russell’s Amendment 194, which I also support. Both amendments propose a levy on the profits of tobacco companies. Tobacco and the nicotine it contains are uniquely harmful products, which is why they should be treated in this way. They are highly addictive for some people from their very first use, by the way; that is sometimes ignored. Tobacco kills more than 76,000 people in England every year—that is almost as many as were killed by Covid in just one year, in 2020—and the four manufacturers that are responsible for most of the UK’s tobacco sales make excessive profits that require regulation. It has been said that they make an estimated profit of £900 million a year in the UK, with an average net operating profit margin of about 50%; as my noble friend Lord Scriven pointed out, most manufacturers of other goods are quite satisfied with an average of 10%. Yet those companies currently pay very little corporation tax in the UK. The tobacco tax of £6.8 billion that they pay does not even scratch the surface of the harm they do; as has been pointed out, that tax is paid by the consumer and not by the producer.
In other areas of society, polluters are required to avoid and minimise pollution and to pay to clean it up. Tobacco companies make no effort to do either. In other monopoly situations, such as energy supply, the Government intervene, yet tobacco companies get away scot free, despite the fact that their products cost the NHS £1.82 billion annually and the ill health caused by them causes major suffering to individuals and families; they also have a major effect on productivity and the economy, costing society in England £43.7 billion a year.
Given this Government’s objectives on growth, I would have thought that a “polluter pays” tobacco levy would be very popular with them, as it is with the general public, 76% of whom support the policy. It could raise up to £700 million per year to fund vital smoking cessation and wider public health activities, as my noble friend Lord Russell suggests in his amendment. It could prevent industry manipulating prices to undermine the health aims of tobacco taxes. A levy would make tobacco less profitable in the UK and reduce industry incentives to lobby against government actions to achieve a smoke-free country. I know that they are very clever lobbyists. Although I trust that this Government will resist such lobbying, this would ensure that the cost burden of taxes is not shifted to consumers because a levy alongside a cap on manufacturer pricing would prevent manufacturers passing the costs on to consumers.
Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, alongside obesity caused by poor diet. Investing in the resources raised by the levy to help smokers quit, as in Amendment 194, will support the Government’s ambitions to halve the difference in healthy life expectancy and shift healthcare from treatment to prevention, an ambition outlined strongly in the Government’s 10-year health plan.
These amendments are very much in line with what the Government want. I hope that they will have the courage to accept them. The key principle is that the revenue to tackle the harms of tobacco should come from the industry, not the poor, addicted and often sick consumer, and the cost of the damage caused by tobacco should certainly not come from the taxpayer.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses common themes: the regulation of the tobacco industry, its profits and its reporting obligations. Collectively, these raise important questions about transparency, fairness, proportionality and the limits of state intervention.
Beginning with Amendments 12 and 148, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, these concern the provision and publication of information by tobacco manufacturers and importers. We recognise the intent behind these amendments: to improve the quality and availability of data so that public health policy can be better informed. Data, transparency and evidence-based policy-making are essential to an effective tobacco control strategy. However, would these amendments enable us to achieve that? Requiring every manufacturer and importer to publish detailed quarterly sales data broken down by product type, brand and region would give us more information, but how useful would it be? The Department of Health and Social Care and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities already have access to significant data from HMRC such as market surveys and other reporting systems. The question usefully begged by this amendment is whether there are any gaps in that data that could usefully be filled.
This brings me to Amendment 148, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which seeks to change Clause 95 so that the Secretary of State “must” rather than “may” make regulations requiring producers and importers to provide information about their products. I would like an answer to my earlier question before I jump one way or the other on that amendment. I appreciate the spirit in which she has tabled it. Having more data would certainly be useful, but we need to know exactly what data before we compel companies across the board to do one thing or another. It is generally better to provide Ministers with flexibility, allowing them to act where there is a clear and proportionate need, without imposing automatic or universal obligations on every business regardless of its size or nature.
Earl Russell (LD)
I appreciate the noble Earl’s point about duties versus levies. Might he be open to considering a percentage of duties being hypothecated for smoking cessation? Might that be a way of squaring the circle?
Earl Howe (Con)
It certainly could be—it sounds a very interesting way forward. I did not take it that the noble Earl was suggesting introducing a levy as a substitute for tobacco duty but as an addition to it, so, in the nature of things, if this were accepted, that is the mix we would get.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the debate today on this group of amendments, which seek to impose regulatory obligations on the tobacco industry. Although in general I would certainly say that I have sympathy for the aims behind these proposals, I suggest that, for the reasons I will go on to outline, they are not necessary in respect of the Bill.
Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on proposals for regulating the prices and profits of, and to raise funds from, tobacco manufacturers and importers. Similarly, Amendment 194 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to raise funds from tobacco manufacturers and retailers.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made the first point that I was intending to make. I feel that in many ways —I know not all noble Lords will share this view—we already have a “polluter pays” tax on tobacco, which comes in the form of tobacco duties, as the noble Earl outlined. Overall, throughout, I am very focused on what impact will be made on improving public health and driving down rates of smoking, as I know we all are. I also appreciate that there are different opinions as to how that might be done. It has been pointed out regularly to the Government that the UK has some of the highest tobacco taxes in the world. Duty rates on all tobacco products were increased by 2% above inflation in the Autumn Budget last year, with an additional increase for hand-rolling tobacco to reduce the gap with cigarettes, and this duty raises about £8 billion a year.
I am aware that the noble Lords, Lord Bourne and Lord Scriven, in addition to other noble Lords, are very supportive of these amendments. I am sure that noble Lords who have quoted me accurately today will probably say I should have looked at this before, but I refer back to, as the previous Government will be aware, a previous consultation in 2014, which showed that going down this road would not raise the significant amounts being referred to when you take into account lost duties.
I have spent quite a lot of time with officials and others going through the detail of all this, not least because of my previous comments. Certainly, having had the chance to review the detailed government advice and all that comes with it, which I now have access to as a Minister, I think that the way to reduce the profits of the tobacco industry is to reduce the use of tobacco—I believe I said that on day one in Committee—and by creating a smoke-free generation. That is not just a prize in itself but will have a great impact, in the way I think noble Lords seek, on the industry. It is unclear to me how an additional levy on tobacco industry profits could be implemented without the costs being passed on to consumers—again, there was some concern about that in this debate—or without regulating prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to a price cap on tobacco products. Certainly, my investigation into this shows that regulating pricing would be extremely complicated to design and implement, and difficult to shield from abuse and challenge by the global tobacco industry. Therefore, given that, as I just said, our focus is on implementing our smoke-free generation, our judgment is that the benefits do not outweigh the costs.
Therefore, at this stage, to do the job that I believe most people—not everybody, I know—is focused on, our preference would be to continue with what is a proven, effective and understood model of increasing tobacco duties. This approach provides an incentive to those who currently smoke. It incentivises them to quit, which is what we want to focus on, as well as generating revenue to be put back into a full range of public services, including public health and the National Health Service.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who I know is extremely well aware that I am about to say this, that of course tobacco taxation is a matter for His Majesty’s Treasury, and decisions on taxes are reserved for fiscal events. I would be extremely unwise, in my position, to speculate in advance of a forthcoming Budget.
Moving on to Amendment 12—
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Houdini would be jealous of the way the Minister ingeniously escaped the trap I set for her earlier, as she tried to reconcile her previous position with what she is now saying. But does she accept that the amendment does not at all ask the Government to introduce a levy? It says:
“The Secretary of State must consult and report on the desirability”.
That would enable the Government, and indeed others, to look at some of the issues that the Minister has raised. The 2014 exercise she referred to consulted on a totally different levy, which would have been passed on to the consumer. The difference between the “polluter pays” principle as we propose it and the one that she proposes is that in the case we prefer, it would be the tobacco manufacturers that would pay, whereas relying on the duty, as the Minister seems to, means that the consumer pays.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree that Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, would require the Government to consult on introducing a tobacco industry levy, but, as a former Minister himself, he will be aware of the use of consultation. It remains the case that we believe that the most effective model of dealing with tobacco products is through increases in tobacco duty, so it would not be logical to accept an amendment that requires a consultation on something the Government do not wish to pursue. Amendment 194, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require the Government to make regulations to introduce a tobacco industry levy.
Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would require the Secretary of State to lay regulations requiring tobacco manufacturers and importers to publish quarterly data relating to the sale of tobacco products across England and Wales. Similarly, Amendment 148, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would require regulations made under Clause 95 to require the provision of certain information, including sales data from producers or importers of relevant products. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also spoke in support of these amendments.
This is perhaps an opportunity to refer back to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I heard her concerns about what I said on day one. This is not a question of labelling an industry in any way, but we take very seriously our obligations as a party to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. I and the Government are very sympathetic to attempts to increase and improve the transparency of the tobacco industry.
I certainly agree with the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. We know that deprived areas are more likely to have lower life expectancy and higher smoking rates. That is why we particularly need to press forward with this legislation. It is also why we routinely and proactively publish correspondence received from and sent to the tobacco industry, and have produced guidance for the Government on engagement with the tobacco industry, which protects health policy from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry and encourages transparency in all interactions.
Lord Scriven (LD)
That is an important point. When will the consultation end? Will we have its results before we are asked to give this Bill its Third Reading?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will gladly come back to the points that the noble Lord has just made, if he will allow me. In the meantime, there is no doubt as to the intention and ambition of each of the amendments before us, but it is the Government’s view that they either are unnecessary, due to existing powers, or would risk introducing complexity and unintended consequences; they would not do the job that I know we all want them to do. Once again, I assure noble Lords that we remain committed to reducing smoking, to improving public health and to ensuring transparency around the tobacco industry’s activities.
In so doing—this is perhaps the overall point of this group—I can say that the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, it is 3 December 2025 on which we can set that date for the call for evidence to close. What I am trying to say to noble Lords is that that is very soon. In answer to the noble Lord’s concerns about how long these things might take—
Lord Scriven (LD)
My question to the Minister was slightly different. It was not about when the consultation will close. It was about whether we would have the results and the Government’s view before Third Reading. That is the critical question—not, “When will the consultation close?”
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord will be glad to know that I am reminded of what I should know already: matters in relation to the dates for Third Reading are matters for business managers. It will also depend on how much progress we make.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I ask for a brief clarification. Is the Minister claiming that Amendment 12 is not necessary because she will accept Amendment 148?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
No, that is not the case. I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this group is about the polluter paying and responsibility across a wide range of areas. On Amendment 12, on the practice of disclosing sales data, it is already in place in the United States—full data to the Government and partial to public sources. It is also the practice in Canada, so there is precedent for that. It is not seen as an unreasonable burden, but it is a useful public health tool. It is important to know, for public health reasons, which I and others have outlined, where sales are high.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to growth. She might want to consider the economic and growth consequences of the ill-health costs to individuals, families and the NHS and the death that results for so many consumers of tobacco products, then factor that in when she is looking at growth in the United Kingdom. Tobacco kills, which she rightly referred to. I do not need to refer her to the cancer registries—that is self-evident. It is therefore appropriate that we address this. As a former student of Marx, as she identifies herself, she will be very familiar with the notion of exploitation, particularly of the poor and already disadvantaged, to which I have referred, and the difference at the moment in outcomes between groups in terms of equality.
This is an important area. We are seeking to strengthen the Government’s arm, as is always the case when you move from “may” to “must”. We look forward to further discussions with the Minister on how best we do that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Kamall
“Ban on manufacture of high-strength oral nicotine products (1) It is an offence to manufacture a high-strength oral nicotine product. (2) In this section “high-strength oral nicotine product” means a nicotine product that—(a) is intended for oral use,(b) is not intended to be inhaled or chewed, and(c) contains more than 20 milligrams of nicotine per portion.(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, or a fine, or both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment bans the manufacture of nicotine pouches containing more than 20mg of nicotine.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I speak to the group of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to whom I am grateful. Together, these amendments seek to prohibit the manufacture, sale and supply of high-strength oral nicotine products—those containing more than 20 milligrams of nicotine per portion—and empower HMRC officers to seize and detain such products before they reach consumers.
The reason for these probing amendments can be summarised by a BBC article in July which told the story of Finn, a 17 year-old who started using nicotine pouches after getting bored of vaping. What began as curiosity quickly became addiction. He described how he and his friends would use pouches so strong—some claiming to contain 150 milligrams of nicotine each—that they would vomit or become physically immobilised. At school, he hid them under his lip, until one day he turned “bright green” in class and had to run out of the room. His mouth, he said, was “shredded to bits”.
This is not an isolated case. Recent data suggests that use among 16 to 24 year-olds has risen sharply in recent years, a deeply worrying trend. These pouches come in bright tins, flavoured with mango ice or bubble gum, and are marketed as clean, safe, and discreet. In reality, some of these products are many times stronger than a cigarette and far more addictive. This is a form of nicotine ingestion which is socially acceptable and often unnoticeable. Children can and do consume these products, sometimes even in class.
The point is not that nicotine pouches have no legitimate role at all. For adult smokers trying to quit, properly regulated products can have a place as part of the harm reduction strategy and a pathway off smoking. Although the Minister knows that my classical, liberal views mean that I am generally against banning things I do not like, what we have at present is the sale of nicotine products that are so strong that dentists have reported that they can burn gums, cause lesions and even expose the roots of teeth.
For these reasons, more reputable manufacturers already limit their products to under 20 milligrams per pouch. They also want a market that encourages and rewards responsible production, and which acts against rogue operators flooding the market with dangerously high-strength pouches. These probing amendments suggest a possible, sensible and enforceable ceiling that would align with good industry practice and give clarity to both regulators and retailers.
However, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of these products is only part of the solution. Unless enforcement agencies have the statutory power to act, those prohibitions risk becoming little more than words on a page. That is why our amendment to Clause 88 proposes that HMRC officers should be explicitly empowered to seize and detain high-strength nicotine pouches, preventing them entering the market in the first place. I know that the Government have indicated that they recognise the need for action in this area; this amendment probes the Government on how they intend to address concerns over these high-nicotine products.
Do the Government think that we should rely on downstream enforcement after these products have already reached young people? That is my first question for the Minister. My second question is: do the Government agree with the sentiment of the amendment on the need to address this issue at the border, where these goods are entering the country in large quantities, especially by giving HMRC the clear legal authority to do so? Thirdly, do the Government see the need for immediate action, or will they require a series of future consultations? Finally—I know that I am asking a lot of questions—do the Government believe that it is more effective to have a firm and immediate statutory assurance in this Bill, in order both to allow these products to be controlled and to give enforcement agencies the clarity that they need to act?
These amendments can be seen an opportunity to protect people, in particular young people, before they become addicted instead of punishing them afterwards. It is about ensuring that, if these products are so dangerous, they should not be able simply to be bought over the counter or ordered online. I recognise that all tobacco products may to some extent be classified as dangerous—or, at the very least, as not good for you— but the products at which these probing amendments are aimed are particularly dangerous. I am, therefore, interested in the Minister’s answers; in the Government’s position on high-nicotine pouches; and in how the Government intend to address the concerns here, as exemplified by Finn’s story. I beg to move.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak on Amendments 13 to 15. I apologise for not adding my name to Amendments 139 and 140, but I strongly support them.
I added my name to this group of amendments because I did not know an awful lot about oral nicotine. I was talking to a group of university students about my strong dislike of vaping. They introduced me to the subject and told me—they were at several different universities—that many university students use vapes almost continuously for lots of different reasons.
A lot of my concerns are around the impact on young people. Growing up, I remember the TV adverts that showed all the damage that smoking would do to your lungs, with images such as the pouring out of a glass of tar, but I am not sure that young people necessarily understand the impact that vaping will have on them. I am concerned about the high levels of nicotine in these products, but I am also concerned about the potential for vaping to lead to addiction and cardiovascular issues such as increased blood pressure.
I have read the same report as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. It mentions young people talking about using vapes until they vomit. The report talks about a young man, Finn, using vapes and says that they immobilise the individual—especially when they use two or three in one go—which is not at all the intended consequence of them. Finn goes on to say:
“You feel this burning sensation against your gums, and then you get the hit”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, these products have impacts on oral health, including gum disease and gum recession. Vaping is also linked to an increased risk of certain cancers, such as oral, pancreatic and oesophageal cancers. It can also have, potentially, a negative effect on adolescent brain development.
My problem with these products is that they are so easy to hide. The fact that children in school are able to use these products should be cause for concern, because young people are talking about sweating, salivating and struggling to concentrate. These products that should not be anywhere around young people. There is also a lot of discussion about how they can be used as a gateway to vaping or smoking. There is a lot of debate around how vaping and smoking are meant to be helping each other, but I have concerns about that as well.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. We know that nicotine is highly addictive. In fact, it is one of the most addictive substances there is, even in small quantities. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, made the point that people use it for cessation of tobacco or cigarette smoking. That is true, but the dosage, even of 20 milligrams, is too high. High doses of nicotine cause serious diseases, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. But apart from that, in older people it causes higher risk of cardiovascular disease, not just by increasing heart rate and blood pressure but by making platelets stickier and leading to higher levels of fibrinogen, which increases the risk of forming a clot. This is a good amendment and there is no reason, to my mind, why the Minister should resist it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have made some interesting cases probing the issue of the high nicotine content of pouches. However, it is worth noting that Cancer Research does not support these amendments. It says that there may well be a need for a deeper dive into the evidence, but it stresses something that has been missed in some of the debates we have had so far, certainly at Second Reading: it is tobacco that is the cancer-causing ingredient in cigarettes.
Nicotine patches do not contain tobacco. Nicotine is addictive, but the overall evidence does not support a direct causal link between nicotine and cancer: it is not carcinogenic. That is what the scientific evidence seems to show, and it comes from anti-tobacco lobbying groups and people whom I would not necessarily usually cite. It is noted that nicotine products and pouches are being used as recreational products, but they are also helpful for smoking cessation.
We have to consider what we are doing with the Bill. The NHS itself calls nicotine “relatively harmless”, and, in his 2022 review, Dr Javed Khan said that
“the government must facilitate access to the various already available safer alternative nicotine products such as nicotine pouches”.
We therefore have to be careful about demonising these things, because it is not straightforward.
There is a danger throughout the Bill—it will come up in other groups—of a constant slippage between tobacco and nicotine. Sometimes that occurs through a discussion around addiction. I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks about this—she talked about the problems of addiction on our first day in Committee—because the Bill is not necessarily tackling addiction; it is tackling harms. There is a danger that we get confused between that addiction, which, as I say, many people in the health professions do not see as a problem per se, and what we are targeting. I am worried that that slippage between nicotine and tobacco, between vapes and smoking cigarettes, leads to an unscientific mishmash of misinformation that, ironically, can damage public health.
In relation to young people using pouches until they vomit, young people use lots of things until they vomit. They can overuse a range of things, not helpfully, but it does not necessarily mean that the product itself is always the problem: sometimes, it can be youthful lack of restraint, which one might want to intervene in but not necessarily through the law.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I broadly support these amendments but also agree with my noble friend Lord Patel that there is probably no reason to have oral pouches at all. It is something that we could carefully consider deleting from our society. If you are trying to withdraw from tobacco, nicotine patches are just as effective as pouches and do not cause the problems that have been so readily described today. While the debate has been going on, I looked back, and it was 1950 when Sir Richard Doll proved the relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. It has therefore taken us 75 years to get to this point, with the Bill. There is sufficient evidence in relation to pouches for us not to decide that we need a 75-year prospective trial to show their damage.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I too support the amendment, and I have a question for those who have tabled it, which relates to proposed new subsection (2)(b), saying the product is
“not intended to be inhaled or chewed”.
I am afraid that as someone who has been looking at tobacco control measures for many years now, through legislation, I am slightly concerned that, as we get rid of one thing, the nicotine manufacturers will find another way of bringing in a substance that is, in effect, addictive, which is promoted to young people, and is a way to get them started on the inevitable chain of addiction that leads to promotion.
When we look at the evidence around nicotine, we see that, yes, it is highly addictive, but the other thing that happens with an addictive substance is that you become tolerant to the effect, to that boost. Therefore, the addict seeks higher and higher doses to get a greater and greater hit. In the long term, as my noble friend Lord Patel pointed out, it is not only blood pressure and so on; there is a problem with platelet stickiness. We do not know what this will do in the microvasculature in the brain in the long term, because these high-dose nicotine products have not been around long enough and we have not had enough brains that have come to post-mortems—I am sorry to put it so bluntly—of people who have been using them for a long time. The hit that they get is greater than they would get from smoking a cigarette.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I want to clarify how we make policy based on evidence if that evidence is unknown unknowns about what might possibly be the problem with something. It is absolutely the case that, where there is proof of harm, evidence is given and medical papers are produced. They have not been produced on this issue—I have looked—so it would be useful to see lots of peer-reviewed evidence that showed harm. To suggest that something could be a harm because we have not had long enough to find out whether it is a harm does not seem to be the basis of sensible evidence-based policy.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I completely take that criticism; it is a fair comment. However, we know the damage to the brain microvasculature from smoking over the long term and that these substances are highly addictive. We also know that when we previously took through tobacco control measures, we never anticipated vapes or pouches. The evidence therefore is that those producing nicotine products are very imaginative and creative, and there is concern about this being used as a gateway to further addictive products. That is why I question whether proposed new subsection (2)(b) is necessary or adds anything to Amendment 13, which otherwise should be strongly supported.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have a great sympathy for this group of amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. There should be a limit on the strength of nicotine products which are legally for sale. Some of those products are clearly, from what we have heard from other noble Lords, very dangerous to both physical and mental health. The evidence is emerging on that.
Limiting the strength of something is not a new idea. Strength limits and price controls have been put on various alcoholic drinks, such as white cider, which has been particularly responsible for problem drinking. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, I am concerned about nicotine pouches and young people, because their packaging and flavours make them look like sweets, making them appear very attractive to children. I accept that only a small percentage of tobacco product users buy this form of tobacco product, but a high proportion of those users are young people.
There is not much evidence yet of the effectiveness of such pouches as a smoking quitting tool; they are nowhere near as effective as nicotine patches or vapes. Apparently, only about 3% of quitting efforts are based on them. In fact, you do not need a high concentration for these things to work; nicotine patches work for many users, and they are not particularly strong. However, there are clear dangers with these very strong products. Perhaps this is an area where we need further evidence, so can the Minister say whether it will be covered in the Government’s recent call for further evidence on measures in the Bill? Before we go forward to the next stage, perhaps we could get the results of that consultation.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for raising these points and for bringing forward the amendments to Committee today. Listening to Finn’s story from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, it is important that we always bear in mind that we are talking about real young people and children and the actual harms that can come to them.
Amendments 13, 14, 15, 139 and 140 seek to introduce a ban on manufacture, sale and possession with intent to supply high-strength oral nicotine products, specifically those containing more than 20 milligrams of nicotine per portion. I say from the outset that we are sympathetic to noble Lords trying to define the correct and safe nicotine level of a nicotine pouch—we need to address that. As we have heard, unlike with nicotine vapes, there is currently no set nicotine limit for nicotine pouches, and nicotine strengths can be as high as 150 milligrams, with the harm that goes with that. There is also significant variation in these strengths internationally.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate; I welcome their thoughtful discussion and the important points that a number of them made. As I said earlier, this was a difficult group for me to put into words, in moving this amendment, because, as many noble Lords will know, I tend to take a classical, liberal perspective on many things and I do not like banning things.
The intention of the amendments in this group was to probe the Government on whether they believe that action to address these products, which have such high levels of nicotine that they lead to consumers vomiting, is required sooner rather than later; dentists also warn that these products physically burn gums, cause lesions and expose the roots of teeth. In probing the Government, the intention was to set clear, enforceable limits rather than pursuing an outright ban.
These probing amendments were aimed at achieving a balance between taking dangerous products off the market when they are easily obtained by young people and allowing properly regulated, lower-strength products to continue to help people come off smoking. However, one of the advantages of probing amendments is that you are able to test your argument and to hear other arguments—either those in favour, which reinforce your view, or those that challenge your view.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Finlay, for raising their concerns about pouches. That is an important point. We should understand whether the Government believe that nicotine pouches can play a role and that they are an effective pathway off smoking. Given that vaping is probably seen as the thing that the Government would promote most as a pathway off tobacco, that would be a very interesting conversation to have.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because she made some interesting points in sharing the evidence from, I believe, Cancer UK. She also posed some questions. What are we trying to achieve here? Are we trying to address the harms of tobacco or are we trying to tackle addiction? Should we be tackling addiction or harm? These are important points. What is more harmful? That seems to be the debate in this Room: we agree that tobacco is harmful, but how harmful is nicotine? That needs to come out a bit more, perhaps, as we debate the Bill more.
I am grateful to the Minister for answering directly some of the questions that I put to the Government. That was really important. Having listened to the Minister, and to the many noble Lords who challenged the intentions behind these probing amendments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the reasoning for the minimum age prescribed in Clause 10, in the light of the Government’s intention to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is not able to be here to move this amendment. For me, this amendment falls in a slightly odd group. I thought that it would be in the first group; then I thought that it was going to be in the group before. It has ended up in this group. I shall talk briefly about this amendment; I will then speak on what this group is actually about, which is a different set of concerns.
The point of this amendment is to ask whether lowering the voting age to 16 would add a layer of complexity to the discussion around any age-gating that is happening in relation to either the generational smoking ban or the sale of vapes and so on. This issue obviously intersects with questions around autonomy, responsibility and any kind of consistency that we might have in relation to how we treat young people.
A lot of concerns have already been raised today, in our debate on the first group, about young people and whether they are mature enough—that is, the vulnerability of young people and so on—but, if 16 year-olds are deemed mature enough to vote and to influence laws that affect society, that strengthens the argument against denying them the right to make personal choices about a range of things; those things could include smoking, let alone vaping. Denying them such a right when they have the right to vote—which implies, we hope, a level of rational decision-making capacity—would seem to be contradictory. So this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is a probing one; it would be interesting to hear the Government’s response to it. There is a danger of there being confusion around age, and around whom we think we are protecting from harm, with this contradiction in terms of a different government policy on voting.
I will now talk about the amendments in this group that make a bit more sense to me. I am very supportive of, and put my name to, Amendment 18 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. It looks at the issue of a ban on all vending machines and whether there can be some exemptions. I urge the Government to engage with a wide range of stakeholders to prevent the unintended consequences I believe there will be if the legislation carries on with this ban. Surely this law wants to ensure that safer alternatives to smoking are available, especially in environments where they might help people resist having a cigarette, such as hospitals and, in particular, mental health settings.
I am reluctant to push this too much because it is the noble Lord’s amendment, but I cannot work out how else I can speak to it. I ask the Minister whether there is a danger that we are imposing measures on tobacco and vaping—this follows on from what we have just been talking about—without clarity about the differing relative harms of each product. The ban on vaping machines talks to a conflation of products, which I am concerned about.
Vending machines containing vaping products have been used very successfully in mental health settings, providing patients who would otherwise be smoking with a route to giving up. Therefore, an exemption to the vending machine ban for healthcare settings—which, by the way, is supported by the Mental Health and Smoking Partnership, which is a coalition of 27 health and mental health organisations and includes some of the major royal colleges—seems to be something of a no-brainer, as they say.
I started my professional life working in mental health and went on to work in education in psychiatric hospitals for a period. When you first start working with people with severe mental health conditions, who may be sectioned into hospitals, or those with terrible debilitating illnesses such as schizophrenia, the thing that you notice—I remember noticing this when I was young—is just how much they smoke. Chain-smoking is almost part of the condition. All of us who worked with the mentally ill were always concerned that not only were they suffering these terrible psychotic illnesses, but they were smoking so much. The irony was that you also knew that it was part of calming them down; that was how they were able to cope with the heavy medication, the psychosis and so on.
I am not making a case here for smoking cigarettes, because it is fantastic—is it not?—that we have found a substitute for smoking cigarettes for a group of people in society who are already suffering terrible mental health problems, which is vapes. We are therefore talking about a group of people who, by the way, are often locked up in hospitals, having access to those vapes. That is what the vending machines for vapes mean, and it is why, I think, so many people are very enthusiastic about this. There are a couple of amendments so I will just say quickly that that is why this amendment is really important.
I am afraid that I cannot support Amendment 21 in this group in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on minimum pricing of vaping products. The noble Earl assures me that his £30 vape is ultimately cheaper than constantly restocking. He also says it is easier to use. I have two thoughts on that. First, £30 as a minimum price is rather an expensive upfront cost for the people whom we keep hearing that everybody cares about: poor people. Generally, the problem with poor people is that they have not got enough money. We should have a thriving economy where they can earn money through jobs.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 18 in this group.
There is merit in thinking about the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, which was so effectively moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. We send very confusing messages generally to young people in society about the age of responsibility. Voting has one age. We recently changed the marriage age. Other things are allowed or prohibited at the age of 16. There is a proposal that the voting age should be reduced to 16, as it has been already in either Scotland or Wales. These are very confusing messages about the age of responsibility. We should not carry on arbitrarily creating bans for young people without some coherence. The amendment tabled by my noble friend certainly brings that to the fore and should be used by the Government to encourage serious thought about this.
Turning to my own Amendment 18, I will take in with it the two amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, though glancingly only, as I have not prepared anything to say about them. I rope them in with mine as all three have in common that whenever one introduces a sweeping ban or a blunt instrument, there are cases where unintended consequences arise that should be addressed through some careful attention to what exceptions should be allowed. My amendment focuses on healthcare settings, particularly mental healthcare settings, which will include establishments where people are detained. They may be voluntarily detained, in a sense. I am familiar with these, for reasons which I do not need to go into, having had cause to visit such settings in the past. Even those who are voluntarily detained are gently voluntarily detained. Wandering outside the building is not encouraged, even for voluntary patients, and is not allowed for those who are detained under the Mental Health Act.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said, such people are very often smokers, and hospital settings are an appropriate place to encourage smoking cessation programmes. That is what many mental health settings actually do.
The essential point I want to make is that we are discussing vaping, and the Bill does not ban vaping. Around this Committee, we have an unclear mental attitude towards vaping. There are those who see it as something almost as bad as smoking, and there are others who see it as a positive solution—as it has been for me personally—for those who want to give up smoking. We need to realise that vaping has a very important place in smoking cessation—it is the Government’s policy to recognise that—and that there are places, such as institutions, where vending machines might be the only means by which people can have access to vape products, which would be beneficial as an alternative to smoking.
My amendment, and I think those of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, are intended to probe this issue, to ask the Government whether they recognise that a general ban on vaping machines might have unintended consequences, and to test whether they are willing to listen to arguments and representations about where exceptions might be appropriate.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 21, and I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for adding her name in support of it. The amendment would establish a £30 minimum retail price for vaping products. This vital proposal is a means of addressing the mounting environmental crisis from disposable vapes, which are still so cheap that they are used as a one-time product. It is also an effective means of ensuring that these products are out of the range of pocket money prices and are kept out of the hands of our young people.
I support the use of vapes as a smoking cessation aid, and my amendment is in no way intended to stop that purpose. Vaping is a good and proven means of smoking cessation. However, big tobacco has been allowed a free hand to move beyond smoking cessation towards a new business model, and it has free rein to create a whole new generation of young people who are now addicted to vaping products and are future customers, supplying it with profits.
While we support the aim of smoking cessation, big tobacco must not be allowed to continue to put vaping products into the hands of young people. Vaping has exploded in popularity with children and teens across the UK, and these products are deliberately targeted and marketed towards them. In 2025, around 1.1 million 11 to 17 year-olds—20% of young people in this age group—admitted to having tried vapes, with approximately 400,000 currently using vapes and 160,000 vaping on a daily basis.
Alarmingly, nearly one in 10 secondary school pupils are now regular or occasional vapers, a figure that has almost doubled since 2018. Children as young as eight have been found to be using vapes in school, and one-quarter of 11 to 15 year-olds have experimented with these products. Anyone with a teenage child will know the true scale of the problem, and I suspect that the true scale is larger than the statistics bear out.
The aim of the Bill is to create a smoke-free generation. We support that, but the Bill could and should go further by creating a nicotine-free generation. The epidemic of vape use has been fuelled by disposable vapes. They are brightly coloured, child focused, flavoured and available for less than the cost of a sandwich. Marketing and pocket money prices put nicotine firmly within the reach of our children. Despite sales law prohibiting sales to 18 year-olds, the truth is that you can go to any corner store and probably get one.
Vaping can act as a gateway to smoking. Studies have shown that teens who vape are 22 times more likely to take up cigarettes and 33% of vaping teens move on to smoking, compared to just 1.5% of non-vapers. Who said big tobacco could have carte blanche to an ever-growing number of nicotine addicts—new generations for new profits?
Turning to the environmental impacts, the numbers are staggering. Before the supposed ban, 8 million single-use vapes were discarded every week—13 devices every second—resulting in 260 million devices being thrown away annually. Each vape contains plastics and lithium. It has been estimated that, collectively, the lithium lost each year could be enough to power 5,000 electric vehicles. The scale of the waste is enough to fill 22 football pitches. The real consequences are big, with over 1,200 fires at waste sites and bin lorries catching fire. Lithium batteries are dangerous. The plastic and toxic materials spend hundreds of years in our landfill sites, leaching into the environment and polluting our soils and waterways. I do not believe that any device should be made where it is not possible to remove and recycle the battery.
Defra has plans, and those introduced to ban disposable vapes have helped, but they do not go far enough, and the problem has not gone away. Cheap products continue to be bought and used on an ad hoc basis. With a quick look online or a trip to my corner store, I can still get a perfectly compliant vape for £4.99. They are fully compliant, but they will be used once and then discarded. They create waste that we do not need to create.
If we are serious about our environmental responsibilities—the Government are very much championing the circular economy; I welcome and support them in that—we need to take further steps. My view is that minimum pricing is the best way to do that. If we have a higher price for these products, we get better quality products that last longer. The batteries will have longer cycling times, and they will be used regularly by their users.
I recognise the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made. However, the figures I have seen show that although there is a £30 entry point—which is not much more than a packet of fags—if you refill a vape with liquid the saving can be up to £750 a year. I have another associated amendment that seeks to ban pods. This is not about making vaping more expensive. It will save regular vapers considerable amounts of money; it will give them a better product; and they will be able to vape knowing they are not destroying the planet and environment needlessly.
Price controls are the only effective means of keeping these products out of teenage hands. The truth is that the regulatory systems do not work—they are not enforced and they never will be—and our children will continue to vape. I do not see another way of doing this. I will be honest that £30 was plucked out of the air; I am happy to reduce that amount. A good quality vape probably costs £20 to £25. It could be that the Government will work with me on that, and we can look at setting a lower figure. I do not want to ban entry into this market, but that kind of price range is where it needs to be. It could be that this price has a free bottle of liquid, or something else, to go with it.
I want the Government to look at this seriously. If this Government are serious about the circular economy and about making sure that these vapes do not end up in our children’s hands, they really need to consider these things and take them seriously. I stand ready to work with the Government between now and Report. This is a serious amendment, and I would like the Government to make progress on these matters.
Lord Moylan (Con)
May I ask for some clarification? There seems to be a contradiction between the idea, on the one hand, that these products save you money in the long run and, on the other, that they price young people out of the market. I cannot see how something that saves you money in the long run prices you out of the market at the same time. I leave that to the noble Earl.
We are discussing a ban on advertising, but I have never actually heard of these products. It is only by virtue of my membership of the House of Lords—which is a restricted market—that I have come to hear about it. From what she said, that is also the case for the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. The noble Earl made a very good advertisement for these products as money-saving devices. Where do I get hold of them?
Earl Russell (LD)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention. My first amendment would introduce a greater price point for entry into the market, but my second amendment is about banning little, plastic, pre-filled pods that have to go into supposedly reusable vapes and for which the manufacturers charge a premium. I would get rid of that, so that people could use a bottle to refill the vape. You would have a slightly more expensive base unit, but the daily running of that unit would be cheaper. Therefore, the savings generate over time. That is the fundamental proposition that I am putting forward.
The noble Lord makes a valid point about advertising. The better option is not to use the word “advertising” but to use the phrase “health education”. There is not enough knowledge about these products, and it would be good if people had better options to choose from.
I will also comment, very briefly, on the other amendments, which I forgot to discuss earlier. I have sympathy for Amendment 17A and for Amendment 18, which is in the names of noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. These are important issues for people who are in mental health institutions or other institutions, where they are not free fully to leave or to get access to vaping products. It would be a mistake to restrict their ability to access those products.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 28, which concerns free samples of tobacco and vaping products. I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for adding her support.
Although I understand that Clause 15 will take action on this issue, it is such an important matter and such a significant gap in current regulation that I wish to address it directly with my amendment. The promotion of tobacco and vaping products through the distribution of free samples is wholly unacceptable. The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, with which I was involved, explicitly banned that practice for tobacco. It is exactly what I saw in Africa when I was a DfID Minister, with primary age children given cigarettes as the tobacco industry saw its market decline in the West and sought to addict children in other parts of the world. If vapes were really only used for smoking cessation, why would they be so clearly targeted at children, as we have heard?
Since vapes have come on to the market, there have been multiple reports of such products being handed out to young people to get them addicted to nicotine. It is the route that my nephew, to whom I referred on Monday, and his friends, who are now unable to kick the smoking habit, arrived at cigarette smoking—via colourful vapes. It would be useful to publish the sales data, and we will see whether we have some useful data on potential upticks among children smoking as a result of vapes.
Public health campaigners have long called for the closing of the loophole that allows vapes to be given to children as part of a promotional activity. As far back as 2010, the Guardian reported that a 17 year-old had been given a free sample of BAT’s vape brand, without being told that it contained nicotine or being asked for age verification. Such promotions are often carried out by third-party marketeers at festivals, train stations and in city centres, with young, vibrant staff enticing people with their free products—but with limited explanation of the risks. Trading standards can do nothing about this, as vapes are not currently covered by existing restrictions.
My amendment came as a result of sitting on the Tube on 7 May this year and looking up and seeing the advert for Zyn that I am holding up. I know we are not supposed to use props, but this makes the point. Zyn, it says, is a “flavour you feel”. “No smoke, no vapour, no tobacco” is what that advert says in large type. Sounds benign, does it not? However, there is an asterisk to very small print that says it is derived from tobacco. Then there are the flavours: chilli guava, icy blackcurrant, citrus, black cherry, cool mint. Then it says, “Claim your free sample today”, with a double asterisk to another tiny warning and a minute warning underneath saying that it is not risk free—an understatement—that it contains nicotine, which is addictive, and that it should only be used by adults who would otherwise continue to smoke or use nicotine. Oh yes, just look at this advert. Do they put those warnings in bold colours and letters? Oh no, they do not. So do not tell me that this is not targeted at young people.
I was so angry to see that and that is why my amendment came forward. How can anyone justify seeking to draw children and young people in with an advert like that and sleep soundly at night? It is welcome that this Bill will finally address this issue, but it has taken an unacceptably long time to reach this point. The industry is, as ever, using all sorts of arguments to water this down, and we should not buy that. Young people who have never smoked should not be using vapes, as my noble friend Lord Russell has just said. Yet, 20% of 11 to 17 year-olds have tried vaping and 160,000 children at least vape daily.
I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm the following. First, will the Bill be robust enough to capture any future innovations the industry might devise? We have seen time and again how the tobacco industry exploits loopholes and adapts products to evade regulation. It is essential this practice of giving out free samples to hook young people on to addictive products ends with this Bill. Secondly, could the Minister comment on the timeframe and the reasoning behind it? I note that no further regulations are required but that the measure will come into force six months after Royal Assent. Is there any possibility that we could bring this forward? We have already waited five years for this change. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about time slipping on this. This is one of the most insidious forms of marketing, and we should crack down on it as swiftly as possible.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group of amendments. Amendment 16 is about age. My noble friend Lord Moylan said that young people are sensible. I agree with that. I think it follows from that that they are sensible enough to understand that Parliament may have prescribed different age limits for different activities, so I do not find that argument wholly conclusive but, on a more conciliatory note, I agree with what my noble friend said about Clause 12.
“A person commits an offence if the person has the management or control of premises on which a vape vending machine … is available for use”.
However, there is no provision for any exceptions.
My noble friend made a case for those mental health hospitals that have vending machines that enable patients to remain smoke free. Is it the case that, when the Bill becomes an Act, they will have to take those vape machines out and go through the whole process of licensing to be able continue to sell vaping products? Is it the case that, under Clause 16(3)
“The Secretary of State may by regulations create exceptions to the prohibition in subsection (1) or (2)”.
Is that the “get out of jail” card we need to solve the problem my noble friend rightly drew attention to?
My noble friend also touched on Amendment 17A, which relates to vaping machines in non-age-gated premises. The explanatory statement says that the amendment
“would permit the sale of vapes and other nicotine products through vending machines in only those premises that are already restricted to adults only”.
I wonder what those premises are, because younger people can go into pubs and clubs. What are these age-gated premises? I can think of nightclubs and the Chambers of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, but it would be helpful to hear in slightly more detail exactly what these exemptions might be.
I am cautious about any exemptions, because I see vaping products as a smoking-cessation tool. Allowing vaping products to be made available in pubs, clubs, restaurants, or wherever, tends more towards the recreational use of vaping, which I think we all want to downplay. I give way to the noble Baroness, who will explain what these age-gated premises are.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
The point of vape vending machines in a lot of nightclubs and late-night premises—of which I hear tales and know nothing—is that, when people are out and about, very often they recreationally smoke. That is how a lot of young people start smoking: they have a cigarette with a drink. The idea therefore is that people should at least have the option of vaping. Young people are actually lobbying for this. I know how keen everyone is on giving young people what they want. That is the deal.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
The noble Baroness destroys her own argument by saying that nightclubs are premises where young people go for recreation and then saying that they might use the vaping machines and start vaping. The last thing we want is for young people, who do not want to smoke, to start vaping because they are in a recreational atmosphere where other people are vaping and there is an opportunity for them to join in. I repeat the point that I see vaping as a smoking-cessation tool, not a recreational exercise.
Finally, while I am normally on the same page as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on this, I find his argument—that we need to fix a price that is so high that it is out of the reach of young people with pocket money, but so low that we do not penalise those in poor communities where smoking is prevalent—to be an impossible circle to square. He indicated some flexibility, but flexibility does not solve the problem, because the easier we make it for the smoking communities to start vaping, the easier it is for young people. I am not sure that price control is an area that is going to solve the problem, but I accept the environmental consequences that he spoke so fluently about.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak first to the amendments from my noble friends. My noble friend Lord Russell and I laid Amendment 21 to probe the issue of the affordability of vapes for young people. Currently, the evidence of the number of young people below the legal age of 18 accessing vapes indicates that they are currently affordable. Not all young people are getting them on the black market, because about half of them state in surveys that they get them from a shop. This certainly raises the question of why retailers are selling vapes to young people without proof of age.
It also raises the role of price. Minimum pricing is a mechanism that has been used for public health reasons to increase the price of alcohol and decrease the amount that people buy. Why do we not take the same approach for vapes? Besides, as I understand it, if the price of vapes is seen as a barrier to quitting, a patient can have them prescribed to them by a doctor. Is that true? Perhaps the Minister will clarify that later.
We want to use this Bill to protect the use of vapes as an effective tool for quitting smoking. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I do not think there is any contradiction between that and wanting to protect young people from taking up vaping, especially as it sometimes leads to smoking tobacco as well.
We are aware that a vape liquid excise duty will come in next October, which will increase the price of vapes. A smoker who wants to use vapes as a quitting tool will not be deterred from buying vapes if they continue to be cheaper than cigarettes because clearly they can afford cigarettes, so of course they can also afford vapes. Can the Minister reassure us that the concurrent increase in the tax on tobacco will maintain that gap and keep tobacco more expensive than vapes? Do the Government have any granular research on the effect of the price of these products as a deterrent?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Parkinson. The amendment raises the broad question of how, as a society, we wish to define adulthood. From that point of view, I think the amendment is a useful one. Clause 10, like much of our statute book, assumes that 18 marks the threshold of adulthood—the age at which one may also contract, serve on a jury or purchase regulated products. Yet, as my noble friend Lord Moylan argued, proposals to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds invite us to reconsider that assumption. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendment.
I turn to Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We have in Clause 12 a proposed measure that would outlaw any vending machine that dispenses vapes or nicotine products to a paying customer. The question that my noble friend and the noble Baroness have posed is whether the Government are prepared to consider any exceptions to this hard and fast prohibition. Is there not a strong case for saying that, in a smoking cessation clinic where there are adult clinical staff guiding patients through a structured programme, or in a mental health unit where staff often find themselves dealing with patients in a high state of agitation, a vending machine dispensing vapes or nicotine products not only would do no harm but could be of considerable benefit to the well-being of the individuals being treated? In those clinical environments, vapes and nicotine products are not promoted for casual use. They have a utility, and their utility lies as a means of harm reduction under clinical supervision. Let us just remind ourselves that patients admitted to mental health settings, or being treated in one, are much more likely to be smokers than other members of the general population. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, drew attention to that. For obvious reasons, there is a deep reluctance within mental health units to permit smoking on the premises. Access to vapes, on the other hand, is a far less contentious issue, I suggest.
I would be grateful if the Minister could say why the Bill makes no provision for exceptions, even narrow ones, to the ban on vending machines. I am not contesting the proposal to ban such machines in the majority of settings, but vapes are not the same as tobacco. I have been approached by one vending machine operator that supplies machines to adult-only venues such as clubs. It asked the same question in its briefing sheet. Why is it that, in a place where anyone entering has been vetted as being an adult, they are being denied access to a vending machine? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comment on that.
Amendment 21 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raises a rather different question. I appreciate the intent behind this amendment. The goal that the noble Earl and the noble Baroness are aiming at is of course a worthy one. However, I have three problems with what they are proposing. First, if one makes vaping too expensive, law-abiding citizens who wish to quit smoking will be deterred from doing so. That is surely a risk. Secondly, smokers who may be less concerned about the lawfulness of the products that they buy will be steered towards unregulated products and/or the black market. I suggest that, under this proposal, that is simply bound to happen. Thirdly, any minimum pricing arrangement will act as a dampener on competition, and hence a dampener on innovation. A good example of such innovation is the age-gating technology that my noble friend Lord Lansley spoke about in our previous Committee session—technology built into a product or its packaging that prevents underage use. Approaches of that kind should be explored before we ever consider blunt instruments such as statutory price controls.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, which would prohibit the provision of free tobacco or vaping products through the course of business. Again, I completely understand and respect the motivation behind that proposal, but we should ask some questions about it. In the case of tobacco products, I am absolutely on the same wavelength as the noble Baronesses; at the same time, it would be helpful to know how much of a problem this now is.
First, is it not already illegal? If not, and if free samples of cigarettes, say, are being supplied by the manufacturers or importers to wholesalers or retailers, that sounds like an expensive exercise, bearing in mind the need for them to account to HMRC for the relevant tobacco duty, which I do not think they can avoid. What can the Minister tell us about that?
Secondly, on free samples of vapes, I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, but I venture to say that different considerations apply to vapes compared to tobacco. My noble friend Lord Moylan was absolutely right: vapes are not in the same league of harm as tobacco products. They are also a smoking cessation tool. I would be the first to agree that free vapes should not be handed out to children. That is a given—
Baroness Northover (LD)
The advert I have here says that the samples they are giving out are actually derived from tobacco. Even though it says, “No smoke, no vape and no tobacco”, the advert states that the samples are derived from tobacco. My reference is therefore to tobacco products—that is the link there—but I also emphasise the point about nicotine.
Earl Howe (Con)
If it is a tobacco product, I take the point, but I thought that the noble Baroness was also arguing about handing out free vapes. Making it illegal for a shopkeeper to supply an adult with a regulated vaping product as a free sample feels very much like an unreasonable restraint of trade. If someone enters a shop to buy cigarettes—let us say he is a smoker—and the shopkeeper offers him a free vape, what exactly is wrong with that, as long as the regulations are adhered to? Do we really want to criminalise that kind of free supply? I am afraid that I am not convinced.
The Bill already imposes a series of significant new obligations and compliance costs on legitimate businesses. The restrictions contained in Clauses 13 to 15 alone are substantial and will likely require many retailers to make complex and costly adjustments. To introduce further constraints and prohibitions, as well as a substantial potential liability, however well-intentioned, has to be thought about very carefully before we go down that path.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, if the nicotine contained in the vapes is not extracted from tobacco, where is it coming from?
Earl Howe (Con)
Perhaps the noble Lord, with his compendious knowledge, can enlighten us on that.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this group of amendments exploring the part of the Bill that relates to the sale of vaping products. I will make a general point to start with, which may be helpful as it has come up a number of times in the debate. It is true to say that vapes are less harmful than smoking because they do not contain tobacco and have fewer harmful chemicals. However, because there is a nicotine content and there are unknown long-term harms, there is a risk of harm and addiction that comes with vaping. That is particularly acute for adolescents whose brains are still developing.
There is a careful balance to be struck in taking action against youth vaping, by which I mean children and young people, while ensuring that vapes absolutely remain accessible to adults who are seeking to quit. Noble Lords will have heard me refer before to the Chief Medical Officer, who is clear that if you smoke, vaping will be a better option; but if you do not smoke, do not vape. It could not be clearer.
Earl Russell (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s response. However, she said that my amendment would make vaping significantly more expensive than smoking but I want to fundamentally challenge that. That is not the case. The £25 would be a one-time deal; after that, you would save every time you refilled your vape. You would just spend £25 once in your lifetime. That is not making vaping more expensive than smoking in any way at all.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I appreciate the clarification that the noble Earl has made. If that is the case, though, I have to say that that would send a complex pricing message to people, and we are not seeking to add complexity to where we are going. I am not sure I agree with the analysis but I am happy to look at the point that he is making.
Perhaps it will be helpful if I reassure the noble Earl that we are already acting to pick up the point that he rightly raised and which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was keen to emphasise, which is to ensure that vapes are not sold for pocket-money prices. Indeed, the Chancellor has confirmed the introduction of a vaping products duty from 1 October 2026. That will set out a single flat rate of £2.20 per 10 millilitres on all vaping liquids, and it will be accompanied by a simultaneous one-off increase in the rate for tobacco duties.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised a number of points about the environmental damage done by vapes. I will be pleased to hear and respond to the debate in the next group about single-use vaping.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about vapes being prescribed as a quit aid. We have a world-first scheme here, Swap to Stop, to help adults to ditch cigarettes as part of a 12-week programme of support, as I highlighted earlier in response to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would prohibit businesses from providing free samples of tobacco and vaping products. The noble Baroness said herself that Clause 15 already bans the free distribution of any product or coupon that has the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine product as well as cigarette papers, and that includes free samples. It should never have been the case that addictive nicotine and vaping products could have been legally handed out for free, and I am glad to say that the Bill closes that loophole. Clause 15 also states that products cannot be sold at a substantial discount, which will ensure that businesses cannot heavily discount products to the point where the price is no longer such a relevant factor for a prospective purchaser. So the noble Baroness is quite right to seek to close that loophole, and I am grateful to her for raising the issue, but I can confirm that the Bill already achieves her intention.
Earl Howe (Con)
To pick up on that, I ask the Minister to clarify the issue that was left slightly in the air earlier about the derivation of nicotine. While nicotine can be synthetically produced, it is derived from tobacco, but the point made by definition in the Bill is that a vaping product is a distinct product from a tobacco product. So the advertisement seen by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, which I agree is highly regrettable, may be accurate in saying that the product is derived from tobacco but is not a tobacco product. Is that correct?
Baroness Northover (LD)
Can I comment on that? It has been very instructive to learn all about this subject. I could see a discussion occurring between the noble Earl and his noble friend but most nicotine is, in fact, derived from tobacco. This fits with what the advert I have here says, which is that the product advertised is derived from tobacco but does not contain tobacco leaf. Whether it is misleading for it to say, “No tobacco”, is another matter, but, clearly, dancing on the head of a pin is not very helpful here.
Earl Howe (Con)
I respectfully disagree. It is helpful to dance on the head of a pin if we can distinguish “tobacco” from “tobacco product” and, again, distinguish a tobacco product from a vaping product. The Bill does that.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I disagree that we can necessarily distinguish between nicotine and a tobacco product, given that most nicotine products are derived from tobacco and are, therefore, tobacco products. However, the key thing here is that nicotine is being targeted at children, who often then graduate to smoking cigarettes. So you have not only an addiction but a potential route into the problem that we have worked on together for many years: reducing smoking, especially among the young, for all the reasons we know about.
Lord Patel (CB)
May I join the argument? The noble Earl is quite right: there is a synthetic nicotine product, which is manufactured chemically. So you can have nicotine that is not a tobacco product. However, as far as we know, most of the nicotine used in vapes is derived from tobacco.
By the way, I want to come back, slightly tongue-in-cheek, on the noble Earl’s question about where it comes from. Of course, I was hoping that he would say, “From tomatoes, potatoes, nightshade and some other plants”, from which you can also get small amounts of nicotine.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, if we take the logic of the noble Baroness’s argument about nicotine being derived from tobacco, does that drive a coach and horses through the distinction between tobacco products and vaping products? Wherever you stand on this argument, are we now arguing that vaping products are, in fact, tobacco products because the nicotine in them is derived from tobacco? We all have to clarify this, whichever side of the argument we are on.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I fear to tread here—I will be brief. The Bill distinguishes between tobacco products, nicotine products and vaping products. They are separate products. I emphasise the point that I made earlier: vapes are not risk-free, although they are less harmful than smoking. They do not involve burning tobacco, which releases tar and carbon monoxide. However, I must say, having heard the range of debate, I feel that it would be very helpful for me to write to noble Lords with further clarity on these points.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I look forward to doing so.
I turn to Amendment 16, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. It seeks to probe the reasoning behind the age of sale for vapes and nicotine products set out in Clause 10, as well as why this differs from the proposed new voting age. The Bill restates the existing age of sale of 18 for nicotine vaping products; it also extends this restriction on the age of sale to nicotine products and non-nicotine vaping products, to which no age restrictions currently apply.
On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the age of sale for these products and the voting age serve completely different purposes. The age of sale for vaping and nicotine products aims to prevent children and young people becoming addicted to harmful products at a very young age. The risks of harm and addiction from vaping and nicotine products are, as I mentioned earlier, particularly acute for adolescents, whose brains are still developing, so an age of sale of 18 is proportionate to the risks posed.
The age of sale of 18 is indeed distinct from extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. In the latter case, which we have yet to debate in the House and the other place, extending the right to vote allows them to have a say in shaping their future and engaging in our democracy. We are looking at completely different criteria. The Government have set out their plans to bring forward their legislation on electoral reform, and I am sure noble Lords look forward to debating those proposals in due course. For all these reasons, I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
May I probe a little on the noble Baroness’s response to my Amendment 18? On the one hand, she seemed to take a hard and unrelenting line on vending machines, particularly in enclosed mental health premises. On the other, the noble Baroness said towards the end that she was still working on it, and I wondered to what extent one could look for hope. I am sure the noble Baroness said that she was still working on these issues. I appreciate that she has consulted the National Health Service, but I think she probably means NHS England, a vast organisation at some distance removed from patient contact. In fact, it has no patient contact at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said that representations have been made by a certain number of mental health trusts on just this issue. Their views need to be considered, because they are very much closer to real life. May we hope that the Minister will come back at a later stage with something that modifies the severity and comprehensiveness of the ban that is, as she says, in a Bill that we are here to change?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will be happy to check exactly what I said but, to be clear, we are not continuing discussions about vapes in hospital and mental health settings, in respect of vending machines. As I said, that is in the Bill. I hope I was making the point that discussions are continuing in respect of vape-free places, and that will be a matter for regulations. I assure the noble Lord that NHS England was in full consultation with the relevant parts of the services. It does provide services and it is the right organisation. As the noble Lord knows, we are bringing NHSE into the department in any case in the future. I am sure he will welcome that, as I certainly do.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
This has been a wide-ranging debate and I thank the variety of noble Lords who spoke. There has been some clarity: it might not be clarity that I am happy with, but we heard the noble Earl, Lord Russell, say that his aspiration is a nicotine-free generation, not just a tobacco-free one. There has been some confusion about the conflation of tobacco and nicotine. The Bill, at least, makes a distinction between those things. It is possible that the Minister—and every other Lord who wanted to get rid of that distinction—wants to challenge the nature of the very core of the Bill, but I assure them that the Bill makes that distinction. If that is not true, it would be interesting to hear what has happened there.
Also, medical scientific discussion on this makes the distinction very clearly and endlessly, particularly, by the way, by oncologists. Those who work with people who have developed cancers from smoking are very enthusiastically promoting nicotine products. As I understood it—as I was assured at Second Reading by the Government and noticed in other communications —we should not be fearful that vaping was a target of prohibition from the Bill. But the more the conversation goes on, and the more it is treated the same, then that is the direction of travel. I would still argue that when one says that the evidence is not in on whether something is helpful, it is not a scientific way of approaching it. The evidence is not in on a wide range of things that are happening in the world. It is evidence that we base evidence-based policies on, not the lack of it.
In the discussion on young people, we ended up discussing whether we are protecting children in a variety of the amendments, through to 20 and 30-somethings in a nightclub who should not be let near a vending machine with vapes in it. My point was not that they would be recreationally vaping because they would be having a good time and therefore it was very dangerous. Although, I have to say that having a good time in a nightclub is not yet, I think, illegal. Having a drink and a cigarette outside a nightclub is, as yet, not illegal—although it might well be by the end of the Bill. The point about vaping was that young people having a good time will often have a social cigarette, and the vaping vending machine might encourage them to do something less harmful. That was my point, rather than me trying to get them all vaping or forcing them to vape.
The conflation of children and young adults needs to be sorted out. In that sense, although I am sure I did not do remotely as good a job of moving Amendment 16 as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, would have, we need to be clear that voting in elections is not a technical matter; it is philosophically about saying that someone is an autonomous adult. Therefore, we have a conflict in who we consider children and adults when it comes to health.
I finish by saying I am genuinely, totally disappointed by the attitude to mental health provision and vending machines. Many mental health charities are concerned about this. The age-gating issue is not an issue in mental health hospitals. This idea that there will be hordes of children wandering around accessing vapes from a vending machine—it just seems cruel and inhumane. I do not understand why that exception would not be made. It is true that mental health charities and family groups have suggested that having the odd vending machine in a hospital where people are restricted from leaving would be helpful. It would be kind and compassionate. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Earl Russell
“Prohibition on the manufacture, supply and sale of pre-filled single-use vaping pods(1) A person must not manufacture, supply, or offer for sale any pre-filled nicotine pod intended and designated for use in a vaping product.(2) For the purposes of this section, a “pre-filled nicotine pod” means a sealed cartridge that—(a) contains a nicotine-containing liquid,(b) is not intended to be refilled or reused, and(c) is designed for single use and disposal once the liquid is exhausted.(3) The prohibition in subsection (1) applies to—(a) manufacturers, importers and retailers, and(b) both physical and online sales and supply.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prohibits the manufacture of reusable vapes which contained pre-filled nicotine pods.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, in opening this group on single-use vape products, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley for their support for my Amendment 22, which seeks to prohibit the manufacture, supply and sale of pre-filled single-use vape pods. For those who do not understand, these are the sealed plastic cartridges that contain nicotine liquid and which are often discarded once they are empty. They are a pre-filled pod that is plugged into a vape, from which all the nicotine is discharged and it is then thrown away. At first glance, this might seem like a small regulatory change, but it is quite important to our environmental sustainability and to the circular economy. These are key principles which the Government are promoting through the work of their own task force.
Single-use vape products are part of the disposable culture of the nicotine world. They are also the key means that big tobacco uses to extract exorbitant profits from their vaping products, profits that have been estimated to be up to 37.1% for vaping products, compared to margins of 8.5% for tobacco products. It is the use of pods that drives these excessive margins. Each tiny cartridge contains plastic, metal and residual nicotine liquid—a trio that makes them almost impossible to recycle effectively, even if somebody was minded to do so. Therefore, each year, millions of these pods end up in landfill or littered on our pavements and in our parks and rivers. They contain materials from lithium to plastic fragments, and they can leak harmful substances into the environment, damaging our ecosystems. Keep Britain Tidy has noted that discarded vapes and waste associated with vaping are one of the fastest-growing forms of street litter.
I believe that they should be banned. There are a number of vapes on the market which are refillable from a bottle. This creates a captive market and excess profits for tobacco companies. It is the state that is left to deal with the rubbish and the environmental damage.
As I said, this amendment relates to the one I spoke to in the previous group—the two go together. If as a vaper you use liquid, you are saving yourself considerable amounts of money. Some people estimate that, depending on the type of vape used, that could be up to £750 per year.
This is a sensible thing to do. It goes along with Amendment 21 and fits with the Government’s desire to have a circular economy. This is not about attacking vapers—this would make it cheaper for those who vape regularly. It would also be better for the environment. I really do not see why the Government do not do this. These products exist. This would not put a particular strain on the manufacturers of vapes; all it would do is stop them getting excess profits and causing unnecessary environmental damage.
This is obviously part of a broad sweep of matters being considered by the Circular Economy Taskforce. Is the Minister in a position today, or perhaps at a later stage in the Bill, to update us on where the task force is in relation to pods and vaping and, more generally, on disposable vapes?
I would like progress on this issue. I do not think that the process we have now is sustainable. I think we need change and I stand ready to work with the Minister and anybody else, from any party, who wants to take action on these matters.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Vaping, as a mechanism for smoking cessation, is now recommended by NICE as the first-line quit method. It has been endorsed by the NHS and it has formed the backbone of the Government-funded and the already discussed and, indeed, boasted about Swap2stop scheme for local authorities. Vaping is very much part of government policy, it seems to me.
Vaping has enabled millions of UK smokers to quit over the last five years. The way that that has happened and that single-use vapes revolutionised smoking cessation was through being easy and cheap enough to swap to quit. Inevitably, with such a revolutionary success story in innovation on the horizon, what did the Government do? They banned them.
As I explained at Second Reading, the ban on single-use vapes, which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained very well in relation to his amendment, was brought in for environmentalist, green reasons. That is fair enough, but health did not even come into the ban on single-use vapes; it was not even discussed. I think that that shows that although, in some of the discussions, it is as though, whatever the freedom or civil liberty considerations, the most important thing is always public health, suddenly, there are things where public health is given secondary consideration to a different set of political priorities.
I am therefore opposed to Amendment 22. Even though we have now banned single-use vapes, the amendment intends to ban the reusable vapes that are on the market and actually being sold. The amendment is interesting because it is at least honest—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has been honest throughout the day—because, in the heading of his amendment, the word “prohibition” is used. Absolutely. Noble Lords might be delighted to know, because my own person experience might fuel these prohibitionists, that I objected to the ban on single-use vapes. Now, of course, because we are no longer able to buy them, I use reuseable vapes, but, guess what, I use them as disposable. Because nobody really thought beforehand what the point of this ban was. Despite huge inconvenience to manufactures—and just to clarify, not all manufacturers of vapes are tobacco manufacturers—all sorts of independent of vape makers have had to completely redesign everything; it has completely disrupted a successful, innovative product that was a brilliant smoking cessation tool. We have gone through this big law change, and not very much has happened.
This brings me to my amendment, which suggests that the single-use vape ban, which was brought in as a piece of legislation, should be assessed before we discuss what we are doing with the Bill in relation to vaping. It is vital that the ban on single-use vapes is subject to a comprehensive impact assessment as to its impact on public health and any effects that the ban has had on public health. According to the figures, 17% of people are purchasing illegal single-use vapes that are still being sold on the black market where I live, and in other places too. Some people have now given up on those vapes, because they saw all the kerfuffle about single-use vapes, and reverted to smoking.
So it is imperative for the Government, before the Bill is passed, to review the outcome of the single-use vape ban, as proposed by my Amendment 145. It happened and I do not think it has made the kind of difference that the Government anticipated—but nobody ever talks about it any more. If you go into a corner shop or whatever to buy a vape, you will see similar-looking products that are reusable, but many people use them as if they were disposable—and even I think that that was not quite what the Government had in mind, so they should at least consider the outcome.
Earl Russell (LD)
I did not want to speak to the noble Baroness’s amendment before she had spoken to it but, now she has, I will briefly respond. I have no problem with her overriding concern that there should be a review of the ban on disposable vapes. Information is important. Obviously, the regulations were done by Defra, so I do not quite know where we are with that.
I will make two further points. The first is in relation to Swap to Stop; it is really important that the Government continue to fund that programme and that people are given proper, long-term vapes, because that is what they need.
With respect to the noble Baroness, I think she is the exception. On the one hand, we have had the ban on disposable vapes, but the problem is that there has not been that much change, as she says. I think we need to go further and move to proper, reusable vapes that cost slightly more but are a one-time purchase that give consumers long-term value. The trouble is that we have not gone that far; this has been a bit of a fudge. If we had a clearer distinction between what was once a one-time, disposable product and what we need to move towards, which is a long-term, reusable product that you would save money from by not needing pods and things like that, we would end up in a clearer and better place.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is good at advertising the product that he is promoting. If anyone is interested in doing PR on anything, this is your man.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 22 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. As my noble friend said, it seeks to prohibit pre-filled single-use vaping pods, mainly for environmental reasons. These things have been the tobacco industry’s response to—indeed, its pre-emption of—the ban on single-use vapes that was introduced in June this year. Single-use vapes were such an effective entry point into vaping for young people and such a terrible blight on the environment.
These liquid pods are single-use vapes by another name. Just because you have to insert the pod does not mean that this is a multi-use product. They are cheap and available and have turned out to be just as bad for the environment as the single-use ones were, for all the reasons outlined by my noble friend. Indeed, they have introduced a new litter problem, which is that the removable sticker from the liquid container is appearing everywhere, stuck on to waste bins and pavement furniture after people have peeled them off to insert the pods. Local authorities have to spend time removing those, as well as the discarded vapes. They are just as much of a litter hazard as their predecessors were. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why they should not be treated in the same way as the original single-use vapes.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the industry has only itself to blame for the ban on single-use vapes, because it used them, via its egregious marketing, to attract young people to addictive nicotine products. So the Government were quite right to ban them.
The problem with Amendment 145 is that single-use vapes were immediately replaced by the devices we are talking about in this group. There is no point reviewing the effect of the ban on the original single-use vapes alone, because they are all mixed up with the emergence of these products at pretty much the same time. A review would only cause a delay to the introduction, by this Bill, of measures to reduce youth smoking and vaping and to assist smokers to quit—which is an objective to which everybody who I have heard speak so far is committed.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I had prepared a whole speech opposing Amendment 145, but I have now abandoned it, because the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made my points for me.
Before I make some observations on that, I take this opportunity to say that, on the first day in Committee, I spoke to an amendment in the first group, but I had to leave before my noble friend the Minister responded. Therefore, I take this opportunity to apologise to the Committee and to my noble friend the Minister for that discourtesy.
The reason I am now slightly perplexed about the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is that her amendment purports to seek a report and an extra process before the regulations on content and flavour can be introduced. However, as we heard from the noble Baroness, we already know the effects of the ban on single-use vapes: as was widely predicted, trying to ban those products had very limited success in attaining the Government’s environmental and health goals. As has already been said, we can plainly see how the ban has failed every time we walk down our high streets and see very similar products available—I suspect that most people who use vapes cannot tell the difference between them. I put it to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the report, review and consultation that she seeks have already been answered by what we can see every time we go to the supermarket.
I wonder why, in her view, it will be necessary to hold up the regulations in the way that is proposed. Surely, given the extent of the apparent consensus among Members in Committee that we would like to see youth vaping greatly reduced because of the harm it brings, we would want to see regulations not held up unnecessarily. Obviously, we want the Government to proceed carefully and introduce legislation that will be effective and reach its objectives efficiently, but we have to get on with it and not introduce delays and barriers where they are not necessary. I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness could clarify that.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I can clarify that she has answered her own query in a way. My concern is that lawmaking—and bans—should not be rushed through without any cost-benefit analysis. That is what happened with the ban on single-use vapes. Many of us knew—and warned—what would happen without a review or process, but nobody took any notice.
The consequence of that ban was a huge amount of disruption for retailers, corner shops and people who work in the retail business, who had to completely empty their shelves and bring in new products. Product designers had to be brought in. That was a complete faff for absolutely nothing—for rushed lawmaking and a rushed ban—which happens all the time. I am simply suggesting that we should have a cost-benefit analysis, maybe retrospectively, of what has happened, before we bring in more bans of more products without thinking through what the consequences might be. It is a probing amendment, you might say.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the first amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley, shines a spotlight on a fascinating question: when is a reusable vape not a reusable vape? The ban on single-use vapes came into force on 1 June this year, as we have heard. Single-use or disposable vapes are clearly defined in the guidance: they are vapes which are not designed or not intended to be reused. For all the reasons given by the noble Earl, especially the environmental reasons, that ban is soundly based. A reusable vape is one that possesses two key features: it must have a battery which can be recharged and the e-liquid container—that is, the cartridge or the pod—can be either refilled or replaced with a separately sold item, which is where the amendment comes in.
The regulation explicitly states that a device is not refillable or reusable if it has a single-use container, such as a pre-filled pod, that you cannot buy separately and replace. In other words, the law at present tries to capture in the definition of a disposable vape all devices that look and function like a disposable vape. So far, I hope, so clear, but as we have heard from the noble Earl, this leads on the ground to some grey areas of interpretation. A vaping device may be packaged in such a way as to claim that it is intended to work with replaceable pods—and hence that it should be classed as refillable and reusable. In practice, however, that claim can sometimes be a fiction. If, in reality, the replacement pods are not readily available for purchase separately, the device is at risk of falling foul of the legal description of a reusable vape. Enforcement authorities will also check whether the battery is genuinely rechargeable and whether a replaceable heating coil is genuinely replaceable.
More and more reports suggest that in some shops, replacement pods are either not available at all or are in very short supply. Furthermore, so-called reusable devices are priced similarly to the former disposable vapes. The net effect is that the user is tacitly encouraged to throw away the entire device, including the battery and the pod, once they have finished using it. Functionally, the supposed reusable vape has become a disposable vape.
The question therefore is: is there a need to change the definition of what counts as a disposable vape? The noble Earl suggests in his amendment that part of the answer is to ban pre-filled single-use vaping pods. The problem with that suggestion is that some vaping devices properly classified as reusable devices genuinely depend on the supply of replacement single-use pods and are thereby genuinely reusable. Banning all single-use pods would mean removing those types of reusable vaping devices from the market, a step which, on the face of things, appears rather severe.
What, therefore, is to be done? If it is true that many devices currently on the market technically tick the box of being refillable or reusable but in practice behave like disposables, how are we to address that loophole? Is the answer to reframe the regulations, or does the answer lie in intelligent enforcement by local authorities and trading standards? I will be interested to hear the Minister’s reply.
That point links neatly to the second amendment in this group, Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which I think makes a sensible and pragmatic case, pace the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, to whom I listened very carefully. In introducing further regulations in this area, we would be well advised to take stock of the prohibitions that have already been introduced and examine their impact in practice. The single-use vape ban that came into force on 1 June provides us with an opportunity to do that. We will no doubt debate at later stages the regulation-making powers designed to control flavours, and so on. I align myself with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in wanting to tread cautiously, reflecting on how the single-use ban came in as quickly as it did and whether some unintended consequences have ensued from it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for the debate on this group of amendments. I will start with Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which seeks to ban all “pre-filled single-use vaping pods”.
We understand the concerns being raised about the environmental harms of single-use products. The ban that was introduced by Defra came into force on 1 June, which was not so long ago. Under that ban, vapes must be rechargeable and refillable, while any coil must be replaceable. A vape is not considered refillable if it has a single-use container, such as a pre-filled pod, that you cannot buy separately and replace. Pre-filled pods that can be replaced are therefore not captured, to the points raised by a number of noble Lords, as the ban focuses on tackling the greatest environmental harms. Those are posed by batteries and the surrounding elements contained in the vapes. I acknowledge that vaping creates waste; that is true when users fill up a tank or pod themselves using refill bottles, as the noble Earl described, as well as when pre-filled pods are used.
However, to minimise the environmental impact, since April 2024 it has been compulsory for all businesses selling vapes and vape products, including pods, to provide their customers with a recycling bin and to arrange for these products to be collected by a verified recycling service. I hope that makes a helpful contribution in answering the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Since this obligation came into force, some 10,500 vape takeback bins have been introduced into stores. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that Defra is monitoring the impact of its regulations and will consider the environmental impact of any new vaping regulations brought in using the powers in this Bill.
I hear the concerns about the appeal of single-use pods to children. The Bill contains powers to regulate vape devices. Importantly, we have recently launched a call for evidence that seeks information on the role that different sizes, shapes and features of devices play in the appeal of vaping to young audiences. As part of that, we would welcome evidence on any types of vaping device that particularly appeal to children. I assure the Committee that we will use the evidence to inform future proposals on potential restrictions to devices.
Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, seeks to place additional requirements on the Secretary of State before regulations can be made on contents and flavour. I note that part of these requirements involves evaluating the impacts of the ban on single-use vapes, which came into force on 1 June. Defra is monitoring the impact of its regulations and a post-implementation review will be undertaken in line with statutory obligations.
Turning to the impact of future restrictions on contents and flavour, we recognise that vape flavours are an important consideration for smokers seeking to quit. We will therefore consider the scope of restrictions very carefully to avoid any unintended consequences on smoking rates. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carberry for her contribution on this group.
As I said, to support all this, the call for evidence was launched on 8 October. It includes questions about the role of flavours, their contents and the associated risks. I assure noble Lords that before any restrictions are introduced on contents and flavours, we will conduct an impact assessment. We will also undertake a consultation on our policy proposals, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations. I hope that this response allows noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to my amendment and the other amendment in this group. It has been an interesting group. I also thank the noble Earl for his response to my amendment. He speaks absolute truth: the reality for most people is that, if you have a legal vape with a pod in it and you are minded to not use it as a one-time product but to replace the pod, most shops do not sell them. You cannot get them, they are not available, and the reality is that big tobacco is skirting these regulations and selling only the vapes, not the pods—and, even if you buy the pod, they cost almost the same as buying a new vape.
I recognise the need to review the regulations, which are very recent, and I welcome the fact that Defra is monitoring that, but the real trouble here is that the regulations did not go far enough and there is no clear blue water. They are neither fish nor fowl. It is too easy to skirt these regulations. You just stick a charging point on, stick a pod in it, and you have met the requirements of the regulations, but the reality is that you are still selling a product that is extremely cheap, is used once and thrown away. These matters need further thought.
I asked the Minister whether she could update us on the work of the circular task force. Perhaps that is something we could do before Report. I am happy for that to be done in writing, but more needs to be done. I recognise the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for more evidence; the Minister has given some reassurance on that. However, I do not support holding up the Bill while we wait for that evidence. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Kamall
(a) retailers of relevant products or their representatives, and(b) any other person the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe are probing the Government, in one way or another, on the question of consultation. What we seek to do is quite simple in many ways: to recognise that the impact of the Bill is not just on big tobacco, as many noble Lords have said; it will impact some vaping companies, not all of which are big tobacco. It is really important that we make that distinction. Some tobacco companies have vaping divisions. In fact, I have asked tobacco companies: when these Bills go through, what will you do and where will you diversify? It is very interesting to hear some of their answers, which I would be happy to share at some other stage.
The other thing we need to understand is that this will impact retailers, some of which are specialists and some of which sell other products but this is part of their income stream. We want to make sure that we get the balance right.
What we really want is to understand the nature of the consultation. Which voices with experience are being listened to? Which retailers are being listened to? On manufacturers, I want to be slightly careful, because I have had some conversations since these amendments were laid. In fact, I have been told by some people that we should not ask the manufacturers, particularly big tobacco, for their views. I have also been told that some companies do not want to be consulted, because that would be seen to be diluting the result of that consultation. Given that these are probing amendments, I will be a little careful about which manufacturers should be consulted and which should not.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am pleased to see this group of excellent amendments. They have been so well explained and motivated that I do not need to add very much more.
I support them for a couple of reasons. In my dealings with different groups of people who represent convenience stores—shopkeepers—they have made it clear that they do not feel that they have been consulted at all. Ironically, the quotes always come from the British Retail Consortium. I have nothing against the British Retail Consortium—it has said some interesting things on the Bill—but shopkeepers feel that there are specific issues that are not being picked up, particularly around convenience stores.
Convenience stores are often a community asset; they are part of the community. I know that the Government understand this, because they are bringing in a new law—although I do not know whether it is necessary—to protect retail workers from assault. As I pointed out in the debate on that Bill, I hope that we already have a law protecting retail workers from assault, but it would be a double whammy if we have two. This indicates that the Government care about retail workers. Part of the motivation for that was the increase in assaults and violence. However, people from those different organisations have contacted me because of my Second Reading speech, where I made similar points. They have pointed out that they are most worried about the age verification that will come with the generational smoking ban and the economic hit that will come from the regulations that will come in with this Bill. These are some of their big fears.
When we talk about cost-benefit analysis and really weigh up what matters, we keep saying, “Health, health”, or “Public health, public health”, but let me tell you that, if you are running a small convenience store, a different thing can affect your health, and that is worrying that you will go under because of new laws and changes. So consultation with the wider group is very important.
I also want to back up the point about the peculiar position on manufacturers. We have constantly heard about everything being big tobacco, which I know is an easy way to close down a debate. I do not actually think that it would be wrong to talk to those manufacturers, but there are lots of manufacturers involved in lots of different products that will be affected by this Bill. We cannot just write them all off as “big tobacco”. Having that nuance is something on which I hope the Minister and the Government will listen.
The most important amendment of all, though, is Amendment 150 because it stresses that this consultation is not to be just a box-ticking exercise. It would insert the words,
“and take into consideration the views of”—
words that the Minister should welcome, because a consultation must listen properly. You must take into consideration the views of the people you are consulting and not have just a box-ticking exercise. I would like a broader range of organisations to be consulted; I would also like the Minister and the Government to listen to them when they are consulted.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, as I understand it, following the Royal Assent of this Bill, there will be more consultations on many of the regulations the Government plan to bring forward. The call for evidence, which was published on 8 October, is already seeking evidence on some of the more technical aspects of the Bill.
I point out to those who tabled these amendments that the UK Government are a signatory to Article 5.3 of the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which aims to protect health policy-making from tobacco industry influence. That is why I think that there should be no further mandation for consultation with those who have a vested interest in producing or selling tobacco products, as long as we keep an eye on small retailers. As far as the bulk of their sales of products containing tobacco—I choose the way I express it very carefully—are concerned, there will be a small impact because only a one-year cohort at a time, which is a relatively small amount, will be prevented from being sold these products. As I said on our previous day in Committee, that will give small retailers plenty of time to adjust their sales models. We will deal with things such as age verification, as well as other issues that may cause small retailers concern, in our debates on other groups; we must do that rigorously.
I point out that there is nothing to stop tobacco companies responding to past and current government consultations on proposed regulations, but, of course, all respondents are required under the WHO convention to be transparent about their direct or indirect industry links. This is appropriate given their commercial conflicts of interest, which are sometimes in direct conflict with the Government’s public health objective to eliminate smoking over a generation.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. Amendments 26, 27, 31, 56, 111, 150 to 153 and 213 seek to ensure that the views of consumers, businesses and retailers are captured as part of the consultations on the licensing scheme and the display regulations, as well as before Part 5 of the Bill comes into force.
Let me start by saying I strongly agree with the intention behind the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. When it comes to consulting on the regulations, of course we must ensure that those who will be impacted are able to contribute their views. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her constructive comments on the need to do that and on the way we will go forward.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and the Minister for her response. With these probing amendments, we were trying to make sure that the consultation was as wide as possible. We completely understand the WHO requirements, but we sometimes worry about some of the more specialist cigar manufacturers, which are not big tobacco but much smaller specialist organisations.
I seek some clarity from the Government at this point. Are they saying that the WHO guidelines mean that they cannot speak to these small, specialist manufacturers? We understand not consulting the big Philip Morris Internationals of this world, and others, but is it the Government’s understanding that they cannot speak to the small specialist cigar manufacturers because WHO guidelines preclude them from doing so? Or are they saying that they can speak to those small manufacturers?
Clarification on that from the Minister would be welcome. Is she able to give an answer, or shall I witter on a bit and hope that the officials can give her an answer in that time? I will do that; I am trying to be helpful. That clarity is essential. I am not asking that they call in the likes of the big firms, such as BAT and Philip Morris, every time they want to do a consultation; we know what their business models are. This really is about the small specialist manufacturers who feel that they are excluded and lumped in with big tobacco all the time. Their demographic is very different. It is an ageing demographic; perhaps literally a dying demographic —who knows?
The newspaper that came to see me told me that its readership was not consulted even though their trade associations claimed that everything was fine. Therefore, we need to understand those nuances. In my experience, I have seen some trade associations claiming to represent a wider membership than they do. They are not the ones who are damaged.
I welcome the sentiment behind the noble Baroness’s response. I had a conversation with the Minister only yesterday about a particular organisation not feeling that it had been consulted. Immediately, she said, “Let’s meet with that organisation”, so I recognise the sentiment. However, I would like that clarification now if it is available.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
We require all those with links, direct or otherwise, to the tobacco industry to disclose them when answering consultations. I hope that is the clarification that the noble Lord requires.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Just to understand, they can be consulted—that sounds reasonable; I do not think anyone would say otherwise. It is important that they do not hide where they are from.
If there are organisations that have written to me about this in the past and I have had conversations with them, I am sure that the Minister will be open to having conversations where appropriate. With those reassurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am at the mercy of the Committee, but we have some more time and the ability to go on until 5.15 pm. If noble Lords agree, we have one more group to do to get to the target. Shall we continue?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mott is not here to move Amendment 29 and has obviously not sent a substitute to speak on his behalf. What is the procedure from here?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I suggest that the Committee adjourns.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
No, it was clearly advertised that the amendment was part of the target, so I suggest that it is not moved.
Clause 16: Prohibition of retail sales of tobacco products etc in England without a licence